Petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors, Wednesday (9/212021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Wednesday, September 21, 2022 | 16:27 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) on Wednesday, September 21, 2022. The case No. 85/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem), represented by chairperson Khoirunnisa Nur Agustyati and treasurer Irmalidarti.

Before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Arief Hidayat, and Suhartoyo, the Petitioner through legal counsel Fadli Ramadhanil conveyed the revisions to the petition following the justices’ advice at the previous hearing.

“The first revision is to the Court’s authorities, which we included from the 1945 Constitution, the Lawmaking Law, the Judicial Law, and the Constitutional Court Regulation. The second is to the Petitioner’s legal standing,” he said virtually.

Fadil explained that the Petitioner is a legal entity that is legally listed based on Indonesia’s law. As mentioned in its statute/bylaw, it does studies on elections and democracy.

He added that the Petitioner had elaborated the latest actual situation on the judicial body that settle pilkada results disputes.

“The a quo law still mentions a special judicial body, which until today has not been established by the legislature. The form, the authorities, and so on have not been determined, when it is important as the institution that resolve disputes over the results of regional elections. We would like to assert that this is a serious legal issue, thus our petition is important. We hope the Court can answer the need for this [pilkada dispute resolution body],” he said.

Also read: Perludem Requests Pilkada Disputes Be Tried by Constitutional Court 

The Petitioner challenges Article 157 paragraphs (1), (2), (3) of the Pilkada Law, which reads:

1. “Cases of disputes over the results of election shall be examined and tried by a special judicial body.”
2. “The special judicial body as referred to in Article (1) shall be established before the implementation of a national simultaneous election.”
3. “Cases of dispute over the final vote acquisition results of the election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors shall be examined and tried by the Constitutional Court until the establishment of a special judicial body.”

At a preliminary hearing on Thursday, September 8, through legal counsel Fadli Ramadhanil the Petitioner asserted that an effective, efficient, and fair electoral results settlement system is important to the enactment of law. It is the last step to protecting the process and results of pilkada to ensure them following the principles of democratic election with integrity.

“We believe the provision of the a quo Law would result in chaotic pilkada results dispute resolution, since it wouldn’t be possible to prepare a special judicial body in a short time before the start of the stages of the national simultaneous regional election. Until today, there is no [clarity on] the form of institution and its authority, the mechanism and institutional existence. With these provisions and situation, in our opinion, it has resulted in the threat to an important stage of the election process, namely the finalization of the election,” he said before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Arief Hidayat, and Suhartoyo.

However, the Pilkada Law still mentions a special judicial body to settle pilkada cases. This, the Petitioner asserted, has led to serious legal uncertainty and, thus, must be declared unconstitutional.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court overrule Article 157 paragraph (1) of the Pilkada Law if not interpreted as “Cases of disputes over the results of election shall be examined and tried by the Constitutional Court;” Article 157 paragraph (2); and Article 157 paragraph (3) if not interpreted as “Cases of dispute over the final vote acquisition results of the election shall be examined and tried by the Constitutional Court following statutory legislation.” 

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/12/2022 09:44 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---